zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Chat
This was covered a long time ago in another forum, but I figured I'd re-address it now that the community is seriously kind of dead...basically, how do you all feel about adding a Special:Chat function to the wiki? I'm not entirely convinced it's a good idea myself, but I thought it'd be a good discussion to have considering the state of community we're in -- I definitely think people are more likely to latch onto wikis with chats, but the inherent problem with that is the idea that they could latch onto the wiki for the chat and not actually become productive editors, which we don't want either. That being said, while writing hard rules (you must have x edits to chat) is stupid and seems totalitarian, general policy could always dictate that you are expected to be an actively contributing user if you're frequenting the chat or something? I'm not really sure, which is pretty much the entire purpose of me writing this forum. If we do decide we want chat, we'll have to draft a policy and all that -- plus, we may want to implement Torus, code written by Monchoman45 for an enhanced wikia chat client that also functions in monobook. I think I'm getting ahead of myself here, though. Thoughts? ~Minish (talk) 01:38, July 26, 2015 (UTC) :I wouldn't mind having a Chat. It's never been a problem on my other Wiki (but then again, it's not exactly hopping with activity, either). I couldn't promise I'd be on it much, but I don't think it's a totally bad thing. I feel like we need to do something to revitalize Zeldapedia again. —'Ceiling Master' 02:29, July 26, 2015 (UTC) ::I agree with CM (I critised the extensions from Wikia very often though, but yeah...). And we need a rules page against trolling. IRC is more or less completly useless, because everyone can block other users by using a certain code (like I experienced). Maybe we do something really good for our wiki. — ShiramLudgerusээ :::I agree with everything said above. Talking on the chat can certainly be more convenient than alternating edits on talk pages (although like CM, I might not be on it much). HH 22:43, July 26, 2015 (UTC) ::::Since the feedback from you guys seems pretty positive, I'm eager to hear what others think -- who else should we wait to weigh in on this, aside from probably Oni? I'd definitely say JML, but I'm just not sure how active he is right now? Is there anyone else? ~Minish (talk) 00:36, July 27, 2015 (UTC) :::::Basically Oni, JML, and possibly AK. I wouldn't count on some of the newer users like RaphBlade7 or Zakitaro, although hopefully Sir Real and Zelda311 might jump in. —'Ceiling Master' 01:55, July 27, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Sounds good. The more people we can get to weigh in the better. ~Minish (talk) 18:14, July 27, 2015 (UTC) :I think it's worth trying. I don't really have anything to add since the policy would be pretty standard, common sense type stuff. Jedimasterlink (talk) 05:20, July 28, 2015 (UTC) ::Well since this is ZELDAPEDIA, I kinda figured it would actually be more lively than most other game wikis . It is (kind of) the wiki for the Zelda series after all. Kinda feel the rules are a little strict though, since this wiki doesn't allow stuff like trivia. Some of the pages I edited kinda had less information than the required amount in my opinion. Anyways though, not sure a chat function would bring in that many users. Maybe we could link with other wikis (especially Nintendo ones) to gain structure and support. Seems to be working for some of the other wikis.--Zakitaro (talk) 10:06, July 28, 2015 (UTC) :::The rules are strict here, and I do think that can keep some people away; the thing is, though, we pride ourselves on being an extremely professional and well-written wiki -- though our rules are strict, you'll find almost every one of our articles are up to snuff and near everything is properly categorized, labeled, etc. We might be overly strict, but those of us who have been here a while like to maintain the fact that we're an extremely well-written and effective encyclopedia. That being said, we have tried the "partnership with other sites" thing in the past and it hasn't worked out too well, but if you wanted to start a separate forum about that it's always a possibility for discussion. Regardless of bringing in new users, I do think chat could be a useful feature for current editors (easier than swapping talk page messages), anyway. ~Minish (talk) 15:54, July 28, 2015 (UTC) :Well I would like to note how some of the pages (the ones about the more supposedly important characters) didn't seem to have enough information (like some of Link's sidekicks), or had bogus stuff in it (like how it was written that Link became the Mayor of Ordon Village even though that isn't really the truth) for some time. I would also like to note how this wiki doesn't seem to use the Hyrule Historia enough which I feel also hampers some of the information in comparison to other wikis. The strictness of this wiki kinda demerits some of the official stuff, doesn't it? On the other hand, I have found that this theory thing can actually be quite "enticing" though. It felt kind of good writing major theories as well as noting stuff in it (which was initially hard to do without trivia) so maybe we can use that as well. About this "partnership with other sites", maybe we can start with the ones closer to this wiki. Is any admin here also an admin in another wiki?--Zakitaro (talk) 01:04, July 29, 2015 (UTC) ::I've found the strictness of Zeldapedia to be somewhat intimidating at first, but good in the long run. Our rules and policies have helped keep this Wiki encyclopedic and mostly vandalism-free for a long time, and it's not going to change. What makes you think Zeldapedia should be any more "lively" than other Wikis? It's all about the community on the Wiki that decides how the Wiki is run. ::Also, there are a lot of people that don't think HH is canon. Personally, I don't care, but I think our compromises about it have been perfectly fine (and rather generous compared to the old Zeldapedia, if you ask me). The games have always been the first priority for information for us. ::Thirdly, I'd be careful writing new theories. I believe they've been a problem in the distant past. ::And finally, I'm a bureaucrat on the Xenoblade Wiki, but neither Zeldapedia nor the Xenoblade Wiki are very keen on partnering with other sites. I've never seen the point. —'Ceiling Master' 15:01, July 29, 2015 (UTC) :::I agree with everything you said. I'm not sure about the HH compromises -- when I was active, we all just kind of refused to utilize it at all, so I'm not sure how that's been handled since -- but I think compromises about it should be fine. And yeah -- people sometimes go overboard with theories, so just watch out for that, I guess. :::I'm still waiting on Oni's opinion for this, but regardless I'm going to start drafting a chat policy soon. We've gotten a little off-topic here. ~Minish (talk) 15:16, July 29, 2015 (UTC) :::Well the lively part was just a way of drawing new editors. The Hyrule Historia is pretty much a way to clear the confusion among the games when they conflict with each other. COuld have some changes later on, I admit. Don't really know about the theory problem so I'm not exactly sure how to reply to that. I was merely trying to note how some wikis have teamed up with one another which seems to work for them. Whether or not this wiki decides to team up with another wiki is kinda up to you guys, isn't it? Anyways though, yes it has gone a little off topic (please forgive me) so I guess it's not a bad idea for this chat thing. We can still do talk messages though, am I right?--Zakitaro (talk) 23:44, July 29, 2015 (UTC) ::::Yes, talk messages will still function normally. I don't ever foresee us switching to message walls and comments. —'Ceiling Master' 00:45, July 30, 2015 (UTC) There was a default chat function on wikia long, long ago called the shout box and I've always missed it. So I would definitely be up for seeing a chat function. If it's overrun with non editors, which given the activity levels and pass state of the shout box, I find it quite unlikely, we can always dismantle it. Definitely worth a try in my opinion. The potential benefits far outweigh the possible down sides. Provided it's easy to implement and looks good, I haven't really looked into that. Oni Link 17:23, July 30, 2015 (UTC) :It's very easy to implement. As I mentioned, I'd also like to implement Torus, which is a client that functions with Monobook that my friend Monchoman45 coded. I could also write up a skin for it that jives with our color scheme, though actually implementing that might take a while. Anyway, like I said, I'm going to start drafting a policy and I'll put a section for it in here shortly. ~Minish (talk) 20:20, July 30, 2015 (UTC) Chat Policy draft * Be polite. Don't be rude to others — it's as simple as that. Personal attacks on other users will not be tolerated. * Don't spam. Spamming is sending the same message over and over again, sending gibberish messages repeatedly, or anything else that "floods" the chat with messages that have either already been seen or don't hold any relevance. * Watch your language. Language should generally be kept family-friendly; it is up to the discretion of the chat moderators to decide when someone has gone overboard with cursing. Keep in mind that some people aren't comfortable around harsh language. * Don't disrupt the chatroom. Don't use caps in every single message — it draws attention away from other people and onto yourself, and is considered rude. Additionally, try to stay away from topics you think will cause fights or arguments. * Listen to the mods. Moderators are trusted to "keep the peace" — if they ask you to stop doing something or move away from a topic, please do so. If you have a problem with the actions of a moderator, you can always private message them and explain to them why you think they are being unfair. * Explicit content is not allowed. This includes sexually explicit content, gory/violent content, and content including harsh language. These topics should not be discussed in the chat. * Do not link any content that is explicit or goes against the chat policy. * Feel free to ask questions. While chat is often used for general discussion, you can always visit the chat to ask the site's regulars questions on editing. * If you have problems with the chat policy, you can always feel free to bring them up on this page's talk page. ---- I'm envisioning admins being mods, but rollback getting mod priveleges could also be discussed. Is there anything else we need to include? It feels like a pretty bare bones policy right now and I feel like there's stuff I'm forgetting. ~Minish (talk) 20:50, July 30, 2015 (UTC) :I'm of the opinion that with our few semi-active admins being mods, that should be fine. Chances are we won't get a lot of chat traffic until more users start coming in, and then we can decide if we need more mods and who they should be. :I'm not really the best at drafting rules, but that looks good to me. —'Ceiling Master' 21:06, July 30, 2015 (UTC) : : In general, I have no issue with rollbackers being mods, but at ZP's current activity level, that would make more than half the active users mods, which I don't think is healthy. Like I said before, I imagined that a chat policy would mostly be a list of common-sense rules, so I think this covers everything. Jedimasterlink (talk) 21:24, July 30, 2015 (UTC) :Only post links if its site related stuff (either a page on site or a source for something site related). People posting links of anything could get nasty. Oni Link 22:18, July 30, 2015 (UTC) ::I think linking stuff is fine in general...but I'm going to add a clause that says that you can't link anything that disobeys the rules of the chat, because that should make sense. I've updated the rules. Everything look good? ~Minish (talk) 23:19, July 30, 2015 (UTC) :::Yep, looks good! If there's any problems (which I don't foresee happening for a while), we can always add to it. —'Ceiling Master' 23:41, July 30, 2015 (UTC) Okay, I've enabled and implemented a policy page. Questions, comments and concerns can all go here, I guess? ~Minish (talk) 23:52, July 30, 2015 (UTC) :Cool. I'm amazed we got something done so quickly... —'Ceiling Master' 00:26, July 31, 2015 (UTC) ::I'm not even really sure why, since we've always had good people, but three years ago this would've taken like a month. ~Minish (talk) 00:58, July 31, 2015 (UTC) :::I think having so few active members actually helps, in this regard. Jedimasterlink (talk) 03:32, July 31, 2015 (UTC) Yeah, having to confer and wait for everyone's pitch in takes time. More people also means more opinions and more opinions means more discussion. So is this implemented fully now? Where can I go to see it? The Special:Chat page is just blank for me. Oni Link 10:30, July 31, 2015 (UTC) :Are you using Oasis? That's the only thing I can think of, it works for me. —'Ceiling Master' 13:40, July 31, 2015 (UTC) No I'm on monobook, and I aint going to swap. I'm far to traditional. If that's the cast then it's a pity but c'est la vie. Oni Link 13:56, July 31, 2015 (UTC) :Eventually I'm going to implement Torus, which, as I said, works in Monobook -- but for now, if you want to use the chat, all you have to do is go to Special:Chat and at the end of the url, add ?useskin= and refresh. It'll put just that page into oasis, and load it fine. ~Minish (talk) 15:31, July 31, 2015 (UTC) ::It's possible to enable the chat box in Monobook by using a special tag: ::I hope it works. — ShiramLudgerusээ 21:57, July 31, 2015 (UTC)